MK I/II/XL Legacy Firmware Poll... to remove or not to remove

Should legacy firmware be removed or not?

  • Remove

    Votes: 210 92.9%

  • Keep

    Votes: 16 7.1%
  • Total voters
    226
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Something I mentioned on FB about this "4%"-

Regardless of the "poll", how can you be absolutely sure that only 4% of the user base wants to keep the switching option? None of us have any way to calculate that and declare it as fact, simply because we don't know how many actual users have ever publicly stated their preference (I for one never have joined in the "polling" on the forum- assuming there are more like me, perhaps a lot more). It's kind of like the election- one group thought they had it in the bag because the publicly stated opinions numbered in their favor, but in reality the silent majority made a mockery of the polls in the end. Could very likely be what's happening behind the scenes at FAS- perhaps there are a lot of users quietly contacting the company to keep the switching option because they don't want to be public about it. Some people are like that, and there are also people who don't want to state an opinion because they don't want to be harassed for their opinion (again, see the last election).

How about considering this, because in my opinion it's what's most important- it's Cliff's company, his products and his time and energy. If he says that's it, why can't we all just respect him and let it go. As I said before, if there's one guy in this business that deserves our respect and gratitude it's Cliff Chase. I don't see that happening (FB or on the forum)- I see a lot of people "wanting what they want" and acting like they're entitled to get it because they have unrealistic views about a products longevity and what they're "owed". Again, there's nothing wrong with making a statement about what you'd like or prefer, but going on and on and freaking on about it is just, again IMO, disrespectful and frankly "bratish".
 
I just checked my AXE-FX II MKII and there are 6 versions of the firmware including the latest. I never really checked as I was always on the latest but damn...... I didn't think there was a total of 6 versions. One version seems like enough.
 
svl said:
Something I mentioned on FB about this "4%"-

Regardless of the "poll", how can you be absolutely sure that only 4% of the user base wants to keep the switching option? None of us have any way to calculate that and declare it as fact, simply because we don't know how many actual users have ever publicly stated their preference (I for one never have joined in the "polling" on the forum- assuming there are more like me, perhaps a lot more). It's kind of like the election- one group thought they had it in the bag because the publicly stated opinions numbered in their favor, but in reality the silent majority made a mockery of the polls in the end. Could very likely be what's happening behind the scenes at FAS- perhaps there are a lot of users quietly contacting the company to keep the switching option because they don't want to be public about it. Some people are like that, and there are also people who don't want to state an opinion because they don't want to be harassed for their opinion (again, see the last election).

How about considering this, because in my opinion it's what's most important- it's Cliff's company, his products and his time and energy. If he says that's it, why can't we all just respect him and let it go. As I said before, if there's one guy in this business that deserves our respect and gratitude it's Cliff Chase. I don't see that happening (FB or on the forum)- I see a lot of people "wanting what they want" and acting like they're entitled to get it because they have unrealistic views about a products longevity and what they're "owed". Again, there's nothing wrong with making a statement about what you'd like or prefer, but going on and on and freaking on about it is just, again IMO, disrespectful and frankly "bratish".
Click to expand...

Cliff absolutely deserves every bit of our praise & respect no doubt there and if the guy says nope, this is it, we would be assholes as customers to demand it to be otherwise. The guy is a genius and if there's a way to try and make everyone happy, I am sure he will do it... he always seems to find a way. But he has shown time and time again that what changes with the axe has a great deal to do with what the community asks for. This is one of the very few companies that actually listens to its user base. But either way, that is ultimately Cliff's decision and I, for one, will respect it. Although I would REALLY like to have that new wah , lol.

As far as the comparison to the elections... yeah, this is not the place to discuss something like that. There are far more variables and outside forces that went into all of that. This is just a plain expression of what the community would like to see happen.
 
Re 4%.. Thing is, I bet most XL\+ owners aren't even reading these threads. They assume this is only the MK1\II crowd freaking out about the end of updates. They don't realize they have something at stake too. (loss of a nice feature solely to appease the MK1\II crowd).
 
Jason Scott said:
You know this, how?



I'm not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

1) I can't presume to know Cliff's mind but.... Because the XL with it's extra space existed way before the option to select FW was created. That was created as a direct result of people constantly saying their sounds changed after the latest update. Correct me if I'm wrong but that really appeared to be community driven

2) If you, as a new customer, bought an XL today, or hell an MK I/II. Once you updated it and got it setup how you liked it, would you really take the time check out your favorite patches in all previous FW versions available to you (if you even knew that option existed)? The fact that these older FWs existed would be lost on most new XL users unless they spent a lot of time here or it's in the manual now.
 
voted remove again, same as i did in the other poll on this. i can't believe keeping old, out of date firmware was ever an option, makes no sense what so ever to waste precious storage space on older firmwares just because people can't be arsed making new or tweaking existing presets. and before anybody says "its not because i can't be arsed, its because i can't get my tone back", if thats the case then don't update your firmware.
 
If memory serves...The original issue came because someone complained that some aspect of the newest modelling sounded worse to him on a specific amp model than the previous version. That firmware release contained other things, which may have included new amp models or bug fixes. Cliff's comments where that the modelling change was more realistic, and then there was the usual flurry of posts with everyone having a different opinion.

I remember at the time thinking, "Well, if you don't like it then don't upgrade", and then Cliff shocked me by announcing that he'd added this new feature to allow users to use older versions of the modelling algorithm when they wanted to.

As far as we know the following might be true:
  1. That original user has a Mark I/II, and now can't upgrade any more because of the accommodation that Cliff made for him.
  2. Whatever issue that he had with Quantum 2.1 (or whatever version it was that he had an issue with) disappeared in a later version, and he hasn't used the backward modelling feature since Quantum 4.0.
I'm an XL+ owner. I've never seen any need to use an older modelling algorithm. Ditch the feature.
 
[QUOTE="Robboman, post:] (loss of a nice feature solely to appease the MK1\II crowd).[/QUOTE]

Well..thats one way to say it. another might be...'abandoning a large portion of the community because a very few cant commit to a version...and will complain.'
 
Took a while, but I found it!

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...2-firmware-release.111999/page-9#post-1340087

You can scroll back a bit through the thread and see what happened.

From what I can see, there was some kind of roll-back in the preamp modelling between Q2.00 and Q2.01 because someone complained about it. Then more complaining from a couple of people over the preamp modelling in Q2.02. So Cliff put in a control to allow people to pick which version they wanted.
 
You guys - be happy you are basically getting warnings that MK1 and 2's are about done. The first came with the last beta and fw. Then he found a way. I mean at some point the products are going to change and be updated.
 
StickMan said:
Took a while, but I found it!

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...2-firmware-release.111999/page-9#post-1340087

You can scroll back a bit through the thread and see what happened.

From what I can see, there was some kind of roll-back in the preamp modelling between Q2.00 and Q2.01 because someone complained about it. Then more complaining from a couple of people over the preamp modelling in Q2.02. So Cliff put in a control to allow people to pick which version they wanted.
Click to expand...

wow, that's some serious sniffin around to find that! lol.
 
StickMan said:
If memory serves...The original issue came because someone complained that some aspect of the newest modelling sounded worse to him on a specific amp model than the previous version.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that was generally the case as well and gave props to FAS to accommodate the user(s) by adding in the rollback feature. I also recall the rollback feature was removed for a period of time but added back.

Frankly, I've found that feature to be of no use to me and could never understand why anyone would want to use older versions (aside from making the transition easier to the newer releases) since, in my experience, every update is always better then the previous one. I wonder how many users actually roll back to previous releases via this feature (and leave it rolled back) after migrating to the newest firmware.

While I feel the rollback feature is an interesting and useful one to a presumably small subset of users, I've always felt it was a somewhat 'too generous' use of resources (of time, memory, etc.) that brought little to no value to a lot of users. Since that feature (that I'll never use) is now taking resources on my AFX preventing it from moving forward I must admit I'd really, really like to see it go, but can understand why users wouldn't want it to go...

We are painted into the proverbial corner here....o_O
 
Last edited:
Spawn2031 said:
1) I can't presume to know Cliff's mind but.... Because the XL with it's extra space existed way before the option to select FW was created. That was created as a direct result of people constantly saying their sounds changed after the latest update. Correct me if I'm wrong but that really appeared to be community driven
Click to expand...

The Model Version parameter in the Amp block is relatively new, however a global Modeling Version parameter was implemented long before Q2, and at least as far back as firmware 12.

Spawn2031 said:
2) If you, as a new customer, bought an XL today, or hell an MK I/II. Once you updated it and got it setup how you liked it, would you really take the time check out your favorite patches in all previous FW versions available to you (if you even knew that option existed)? The fact that these older FWs existed would be lost on most new XL users unless they spent a lot of time here or it's in the manual now.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have to intentionally go out of my way to check older presets using earlier firmware versions because the current firmware sets such presets to whatever version they were saved under automatically.
 
squealie said:
Well..thats one way to say it. another might be...'abandoning a large portion of the community because a very few cant commit to a version...and will complain.'
Click to expand...

Do you think the Model Version parameter was implemented because some people enjoy using older versions over current firmware and are simply too lazy to install a previous firmware version? If so, think again.
 
Stratoblaster said:
While I feel the rollback feature is an interesting and useful one to a presumably small subset of users, I've always felt it was a somewhat 'too generous' use of resources (of time, memory, etc.) that brought little to no value to a lot of users.
Click to expand...

Do you understand why it was implemented in the first place?
 
Based on numerous replies in this and other threads, it's apparent there's a serious lack of understanding as to why the Model Version parameter was implemented in the first place.
 
Mklane said:
XL owner and I have never used the firmware rollback. I always update to the newest and have only had to make minor tweaks. It seems like a wasted feature to me that I will never use.
Click to expand...

Same here. Over time, my "go-to" amps have changed a bit, but I've never had the need nor desire to roll back for any of my presets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom